"I went to Jerusalem to become acquainted (Gk. istoria) with Cephas" - Paul's words from Galatians 1:18.

The Dangerous Desire to Remove the Electoral College

After Hillary Clinton won America's popular vote, but Donald Trump won more state electoral votes and is now the President-elect, many millennials on social media are asking to get rid of the Electoral College.

This is dangerous. Our Founding Fathers feared a pure democracy, and for this reason they created a Constitution that established a democratic Republic, which includes a system whereby representatives (electors) would be the only people who would actually "vote" for the next President of the United States. Donald Trump won more "electoral votes" than Hillary Clinton. These electors will gather at their respective state capitals on Monday, December 19, 2016 and make official Donald Trump's election to the office of President of the United States.

Why did the Founding Fathers establish the Electoral College? For a very important reason:

That's right. The Founding Fathers feared a pure democracy. When the invalid eighty-one-year-old Benjamin Franklin was carried out of Philadelphia's City Hall at the conclusion of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, it is said that a woman stopped the caravan carrying the most famous American of the 1700's and asked "Mr. Franklin, do we have a monarchy or a republic?" The response came:

"A Republic, Madame, if you can keep it."

I'll never forget my fourth grade teacher asking us if the United States was a democracy or a republic. Most of us didn't know what either term meant, but the majority of us answered "A democracy."

Our teacher then asked us to stand and face the American flag, place our hands over our hearts, and cite the Pledge of Allegiance.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands..."

Our teacher stopped us..., "Listen to what you just said - 'and to the Republic.' Boys and girls, never forget the United States of America is a Republic, not a democracy."

After we sat down, a boy raised his hand and asked the question, "How is a Republic different from a democracy?"

That little exchange when I was ten years old began a lifelong love for governance based on Natural Law. I began to learn what our forefathers believed. For example, during the 1787 Constitutional Convention,Edmund Randolph described the multiple discussions the Constitutional Convention delegates had during the four months of debate regarding "evil" in governments and political systems. He reflected...

"...that in tracing these evils to their origin, every man (at the Constitutional Convention) had found the origin of evil in the turbulence and follies of democracy."

It was unanimous at the Constitutional Convention that pure democracy was evil.

In our age when everyone thinks that the most Twitter followers, the most Facebook "Likes," and the most popularity is always the best, it's difficult to fathom why the rule of law (e.g. Natural Law) is always better than a governance by opinions of the most people. The Founding Fathers understood that any government of pure democracy will eventually collapse.

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

John Marshall, who later became Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court observed,

"Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."

If America keeps the rule of law established by the Founding Fathers, then the Electoral College will remain. If the Constitution is abandoned and we move toward a pure democratic (popular) vote, then the United States will become a government ruled by the majority wishes of people (i.e. "a pure democracy").

The Electoral College means that each state elects representatives (electors) who will go to their respective state capital and cast their vote for the next President of the United States. 538 electors are sent by the people of the United States to cast their votes for the President.

An elector can become a "faithless" elector and not vote on Monday, December 19, 2016 as obligated by his or her state. But that is a very rare thing indeed (with penalties). If there is a tie when the electors cast their votes (269 vs. 269), then the United States House of Representatives will cast the tie breaking vote. This is why when a Presidential candidate receives 270 electoral votes - even if he or she doesn't win the popular vote - that candidate will become the next President of the United States.

The Founding Father's could have said from the beginning, "The candidate that receives the most number of popular votes will be elected President." But they didn't. Why did the Founding Father's not want the popular vote to elect our President?

I realize it is difficult for people in America today to understand why America needs to preserve our democratic Republic. Instead of quoting the Founding Fathers, I'll give you a simple explanation as to why the Electoral College is needed.

If America were a pure democracy, the Presidential candidate who wins the popular vote in the major metropolitan areas of the coasts will always win the election. The Electoral College gives representation to people who live in the heartland of America. The farmers, ranchers, small businessmen, and others who live in rural America - the people who feed our country and fuel our country - are guaranteed a voice through their electors. The fact that the smaller states in population have greater proportional electoral representation to more populated coastal states insures that the people who live in 95% of the land mass of America are not swallowed up by the masses who live in 5% of the country. In other words, the Electoral College - established by the Constitution - means our country is a democratic Republic, and keeps a pure democracy at bay.

The reason Benjamin Franklin responded, "A Republic, Madame, if you can keep it" is because he--along with the other Founding Fathers--believed that a republic could eventually descend into a democracy, a democracy would always eventually dissolve into anarchy, and anarchy would ultimately lead to totalitarianism.

Again, the Founding Fathers believed through their study of governments throughout world history that a pure democracy will soon descend into anarchy, and that anarchy will soon devolve into totalitarianism, For this reason, it is best, at least according to our Founding Fathers, to avoid pure democracy and "keep" a democratic Republic - if we can.

Well said, Wade! For proof that pure democracies deteriorate into tyrannies, look no further than the French Revolution. It established a pure democracy, proceeded to commit horrors and atrocities and ended when Napoleon took over as emperor, and then spread their chaos to the rest of Europe.

One major somewhat counterintuitive result from voting theory is that there is no perfect system of voting. One way to interpret this is that ANY voting system is subject to being criticized for neglecting some desirable property. In other words, any system can be criticized on some grounds that seems to not be "right". Of course, the Framers did not know this, but it helps to know this when some take a potshot at the Electoral College.

The Framers had a few puzzles to solve and I think they did a great job. One of the puzzles was how to ensure that the large states in size and population did not overwhelm the small states. Virginia alone had about 1/5 of the population of the 13 colonies. A part of the solution was to have 2 legislative bodies, the Senate where each state was equal in having 2 Senators and the House which had Representatives based on population. And yes, there was the 3/5 compromise on how to treat slaves for this purpose. But what to do about electing the President and Vice President? They combined the 2 ideas of Senate and House to determine how many electors each state would have. This compromise on the number of delegates help assure the small states that they would have a voice in selecting the President. This reason continues to this day.

Great post! I never realized so many people lived in such a small part of America. I wonder if that makes them a ‘different kind’ of people than those that have ‘elbowroom’. Today we drove 10 miles and did not meet one car whereas in Dallas my knuckles are white.

It’s the crowed people in big towns that are having protest marches and destruction of property over the election.

You quoted John Adams: “…There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

His words remind me of:

“All great nations commit suicide with 7 steps.” By former Colorado Governor Richard Lamm1. Have America to use more languages than English.2. Encourage immigrants to maintain their culture.3. Celebrate diversity rather than unity. Replace the ‘melting pot metaphor’ with the ‘salad bowl metaphor’.4. Make the fastest growing group the least educated with a 50% high school dropout rate.5. Establish the cult of ‘Victim’ by minorities thinking their lack of success or excessive persecution is the fault of the majority and start a grievance industry.6. Be labeled a “racist” if you disagree with the ‘Victim’.7. Make it impossible to enforce immigration laws.

Wow! I can't believe people are such poor losers. Just look at the map which has the county breakdown of the votes. Looks like blue freckles on a red face. So I am thinking that over populated areas seem to have the problem. I live in one of those areas and am from rural America. People are all about themselves where I am now. Go home for a visit. People are much friendlier, helpfull and HAPPIER!

1. Yes - correction made2. Yes - they can switch3. Penalties are usually monetary ($1000 to $10,000)4. Protesters will most likely move all electors toward TRUMP. Anarchy (in the streets) or "the rule of law" by the Constitution? Electors will chose the latter.5. The protesters are anarchists, pure and simple - the scourge of our Republic.

One of my daughter-in-laws was raised in Chicago and liked it. After many years in Texas she went to visit her parents with her first baby. She came back angry because strangers in Texas said cute things about her baby and Chicago said nothing.

The electoral college was established for a simple reason that had little to nothing to do with fear of a direct democracy or "mob rule". Information in the 18th century could only travel at the speed of a horse and the most practical way to conduct a national vote was to send "electors" that represented the voters in each state. It is difficult to come up with an honest argument against the idea the each person's vote should could equally.Doing away with the electoral college also would in no way do away with our republic. We would still elect representatives to congress.

I want to bring up another aspect specific to this election. That of popular vote.

Wade does an excellent job of presenting the absolute requirement for us to maintain the Electoral College. It is foundational to the protections of our republican form of government and a protection to the people.

We are being treated to the brats of society who most likely all got "participation trophies" all their lives in some form or another. They have now grown into the most entitled minded people our nation has ever raised. They look at a rote number and suggest that something is "not fair" if not equalized. They are the type as a kid to count the sprinkles on each cupcake and rage if theirs was one less. So, they are now angry that Hillary is "ahead in the popular vote( Estimated at some 210K) and are now demanding the electoral college be thrown out as a result. Forget for now that they don't even entertain the facts surrounding why we have the electoral college and lets just focus on the popular vote. Why? Because even there Hillary most likely lost.

Absentee ballots in most states are not generally counted. If you win a state by 500,000 votes and there are some 400,000 absentee ballots in the safe to be counted the winner simply says "Okay, I concede all those to my opponent" to end the race. No counting has to be done and no expense to the taxpayer. (Remember Gore in Florida?) If you look at historical breakdowns of absentee ballots there is much evidence suggesting a 66 to 33 split favoring republicans. There were millions of these and they were not necessarily included and if they were they may well have been as a result of concession and NOT as they actually voted.

Translation, the popular vote on which the "protestors" with their participation trophies are now acting is not representative and may well be different than they think....This, of course, would make them quite angry to even entertain.

I shake my head at this post. This is the sort of thing we in other countries find so aggravating, namely that no evidence is actually laid out to support a viewpoint apart from quoting from people 200 years ago.

Having an election by popular vote is NOT a repudiation of a Republic, and nor is it somehow going to result in national suicide.

Think: There are other countries out there. Do you realise that Wade? Do any of these countries have a popular vote for their president? Yes. Absolutely. And these countries have been around for a long, long time. Thus the statement "There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide" - John Marshall was WRONG.

I posted on this subject recently Wade, but you seem to have ignored the point I was making then as now. There is NO SUCH THING AS A PURE DEMOCRACY. There are NO COUNTRIES around this earth which run a pure Democracy and having a popular vote for president is NOT going to lead America into a pure democracy.

I live in Australia. We call ourselves a Democracy. When we vote, we vote for representatives in parliament to make decisions on our behalf. We're not a Republic but we might as well be.

The United States was the world's first modern Democracy. And like being the world's first at something, there are a lot of problems that need to get ironed out. Your founders knew this, which was why they allowed the process of constitutional amendments to exist. As time went by and the limitations of the constitution was exposed, amendments were approved to change the constitution slightly. Do these amendments have the same force as the original constitution? Absolutely.

So if there is a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral vote and instead select the executive by popular vote, then once it is approved it has the same weight and force as the original constitution.

But at present the constitution of the United States is like an old, worn out Model T Ford motor car. Great in its day, but badly in need of repair. The mistakes and shortcomings of the US Constitution and US system have been so prevalent for so long that when other countries have moved into liberal democracies (Australia, UK, Western Europeans countries, etc) they have not only used the wonderful example of America's founding fathers to inspire their own constitutions, they have also used its shortcomings to create something better. And just as other countries have been inspired by the United States, so should the United States be inspired by other countries.

No other country has an electoral college. That is one thing that should be jettisoned by the US as soon as is possible. The rights of the states are not somehow lessened by the removal of the electoral college because of the equal representation that each state the union has in the senate. This is why Oklahoma has 2 senators and California has 2 senators.

As Christians we also should remember that any national constitution is a human document that was written by sinners. A such the words of the founders should not have the same weight as that of scripture. It also means that we should acknowledge that any human documents should be imperfect and in need of updating when situations change, as they have done since the 18th century.

And we should also remember that the people from the past were as flawed as we were. For example, John Marshall's statement "There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide" needs to be read in the light of the fact that the world today is as full of liberal democracies as it has ever been, with many of these countries being around for a long period and not committing suicide.

Dear Australian, we, are not Australia. We are not a Democracy we are a republic. While I understand your sentiments surrounding what democracies exist in today's world to suggest that our form of government and it's many protections against knee-jerk reactionary mob rule is out of kilter and likened to an old car is misplaced.

Like many, you may even entertain that our constitution is some kind of "living document" instead of the document of rigid absolutes that it actually is. If you want to change it, and I have always supported those who wish to, then do so by the vehicle provided. The Amendment Process.

Were our old, tired, worn out republic in need of such repair then you can bank that our founders would have even started making changes but they did not. The left in our nation does not like a rigid constitution, they want the false perception of a fluid document there so judges can make it up as they go. It has happened a time or two on various subjects. However, they had to do things this way because much of what they liberal progressives want to do in this country is against the will of the people. One only has to look at The Affordable Care Act (ACA, Also known as Obamacare) to see a process that avoided the will of the people completely and was further subverted by activism on our highest court. Our tired, old, worn out document is not to blame, the evil people who did these actions are. Yes, that document is man-made, not it is not perfection, only the Bible is, but to suggest its demise or complete revamp just because we fly jets instead of ride horses to transport ourselves now avoids the fact that we mere humans never really change at all. Its why a document of absolutes is absolutely essential. One that not only has protections but slows up things purposefully to prevent self-destruction.

To those you somehow think the "popular" vote is ignored, think in terms of each state's (and D.C.) popular vote tabulated. The winner of the popular vote then receives electors (as each individual state has determined). Those electors determine the president (assuming a plurality). Our presidential election is a series of state elections For those who think their "popular" vote didn't count - they should examine who won their particular state.

Our Founding Fathers believed that "one person, one vote" would lead to anarchy. They established a "rule of law." In the beginning, landowners alone could vote - believing that the literate would understand the importance of law. I'm not suggesting you (or anyone else like it), I'm just pointing out the very thing you advocate is the very thing the Founding Fathers feared.

If the system really worked, then proportional electoral votes may be a better solution - keeps the most populated states (like California with 55 votes) from completely going to one particular party.

Looks like OK and WV were the only two states that did not have any blue counties in them. Several counties in TX with over 90% red votes - one was 95%. Highest county I found for Dem votes was Prince Georges in MD with around 90%. DC had around 94% Dem.

With your reasoning, we should overturn the 17th Amendment and return to letting the state legislatures electing senators as our founding fathers set out in the Constitution as was the law of the land until 1913.

The reason for the 17th Amendment was the amount of bribery by Montana's Copper King, William Andrews Clark (1839-1925), who wanted to be Montana's Senator. He bribed legislators with $1000 bills given to them in envelopes. Clark later declared, "I never bribed a man who didn't want to be bribed." Thus, the 17th Amendment. Interesting note about W.A. Clark. He built the most expensive home in the history of the United States on 5th Avenue ("Clark's Folly" is what they called it - an estimated $300 million in today's currency). It stood for only 16 years and was torn down to make room for the building that now stands at 77th and 5th Avenue, just west of the Mark Hotel - the building where my cousin now lives. He and his wife and Rachelle and I had a great time recently talking about William A. Clark and the reasoning for the 17th Amendment as we set in their home in New York. I'm not against Amendments for the right reasons, and truthfully, I'm not for taking back the 17th Amendment, I'm just against adding another Amendment to the Constitution to remove the Electoral College.

"I shake my head at this post. This is the sort of thing we in other countries find so aggravating, namely that no evidence is actually laid out to support a viewpoint apart from quoting from people 200 years ago"

Well, most Western country's back then had a Monarch or a political state church so the Founders were pretty radical for their time. Thank God. :o)

Democracy in countries where every citizen is required to vote, can have a "government" which is elected by around 26% of the votes. This is achieved when the "Governing Party" has candidates in only just over 50 % of the wards/electorates for elected members and by receiving just over 50% of the popular vote for their candidate within those wards/electorates. That means the governing party receives only a little over 25% of the popular vote where every registered "voter" is required to vote.

In countries/nations where it is optional to vote in an election then if only 20% of the registered voters turn out to cast their vote in the just over 50% of the wards/electorates that the party has nominated candidates, then the governing party receives just over 10% of the popular vote.

For the other 90% of the registered voting population to then claim that the winning governing party is not the governing party that they want, when the elected governing party played by "the rules of the election process," shows an appalling lack of responsibility on the part of that 90% of the registered voters part who may not have even cast their vote in the election outcome.

It seems that within the USA, you have another level of checks and balances where the Electoral College can exercise their responsibility to vote in a manner that endorses the best person to become the President of the USA.

It seems to me as an outside observer that the Presidential election process is not in need of fixing but rather there is a need to fix the perception of the voting population that if they did not caste a vote in the election, then they are not personally responsible for the outcome. It seems to me that this is where the election process is broken. It is a lack of understanding that every registered voter has a responsibility to cast their vote so that the countered vote is more reflective of the overall population and their wishes. Voters everywhere need to step up to take responsibility for the outcome of every election.

There is an election coming where we can choose between life and death and it is our responsibility to chose wisely so that the outcome is truly reflective of the people we want to be within the circumstances on offer of having a right relationship with God.

“The founding fathers were wise to set up the Electoral College for presidential elections. If we used popular vote instead then the rural people in the “heartland of America” would have no influence.” and quoting you: “If America were a pure democracy, the Presidential candidate who wins the popular vote in the major metropolitan areas of the coasts will always win the election.”

But it’s not true that popular vote would neglect the heartland. The major metropolitan areas of the coasts add up to less than 50%: on your map, take the cities in blue and omit the non-coastal ones. Their total is now below 50%, so how could they dominate?

In fact, the popular vote is very fair: it’s one person, one vote. Your vote carries the same influence no matter where you move in the country, whether you’re in Washington DC (densely populated) or Alaska (sparse). Regardless of race, gender, or current location, your vote counts the same.

Our current system is a combination of electoral college (constitutional) and winner-take-all for electors in each state (state law).

But this current system is extremely unfair. Watch the candidates: they spent over half their energy this election in six states: FL, OH, PA, NC, VA, and NH. Does that sound fair? If you’re a voter in Texas, and the candidates never come to your state, is that equitable? If the polls show that Texas is solidly red, how does it feel to be one of those 8 million Texas voters? Whether you’re Republican or Democratic, you’d know that your presidential vote is nearly valueless. Red is going to win no matter how or whether you vote. Similar reasoning applied if you lived in California, which is solidly blue: regardless of party or leaning, your presidential vote will make no difference; its weight is nearly zero because it’s a foregone conclusion that the state’s electors will go blue.

On the other hand, if you lived in New Hampshire (as it turned out), your vote was super-important! The final vote difference between Trump and Clinton in that state was only about 2,600. We can quantify the idea of voter weight or influence in each state with a formula: number of electors in the state divided by vote difference in the state. Using this formula, in the 2016 election, it turns out that the state with the highest weight, where each vote counted the most, was New Hampshire, and two states where votes counted the least, where a presidential vote had the least chance of affecting the outcome, were Massachusetts and Oklahoma, because they were so solidly blue and so solidly red, respectively. A vote in the super-swing state of New Hampshire carried about 130 times the weight of a vote in either Massachusetts or Oklahoma.

This unfairness is not something that hurts just Democrats or just Republicans; it applies to all voters in a state. If you happened to live in New Hampshire, regardless of party or leaning, your vote was super consequential. But if you lived in MA, OK, MD, KY, … and most other states, for that matter, regardless of party, your presidential vote was nearly inconsequential.

Our current system is not even close to the ideal of “one person, one vote”, it is “swing state voters matter, and all others don’t” for the presidential election.

We can do the same analysis for the 2000 election (Bush/Gore). You find that the range of weights was even higher: a voter in Florida had 2,900 times the influence of a voter in Utah! Why should one vote in Florida count as much as 2,900 votes in Utah? Don’t we believe that all people are created equal?

To eliminate this extreme unfairness, we need to abolish winner-take-all and we need to abolish the electoral college. Using a popular vote, instead, would bring us closer to the ideal of “one person, one vote”. And there’s a way we could adopt the popular vote without a constitutional amendment. Read about it at http://www.nationalpopularvote.com . Eleven states have already approved this plan.

I agree with One Salient Oversight’s comment that in your article, Wade, “no evidence is actually laid out to support a viewpoint apart from quoting from people 200 years ago”, and I’ll correct his observation that “No other country has an electoral college” with the information that Italy, Burundi, Estonia, Kazakhstan, and a handful of other countries use one. But it seems that most countries following in our footsteps were smart enough to not repeat our electoral college mistake.

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution, so the second will not become, the legalized version of the first".--Thomas Jefferson

This movie on the Korean War left me depressed and angry with General MacArthur. Truman fired him because he got so many soldiers killed by advancing to the border of China which caused them to enter the war. Outnumbered ten to one we had to retreat.

I kept thinking I could have been in that war as my brother and I wanted to enlist when we were 18. But our father said, “No; one person in a war is enough for any family, and for us to stay in college ROTC.” I was in the Air Force but between wars.

I thought back to our last conversation where in confusion he asked for my belt so he could get out of a horse-trough.

I think without 'gerry-mandering' by people who want to win unfairly, the system would work as it should;but currently the gerry-mandering has led to an exposure of how finagling with 'the system' undermines its credibility.

Trump said: 'it's a rigged system' and he was right. It is.

I hope someday, when all the venom is expended, and right-thinking Americans want to live honorably (and I believe this will happen), that we do away with the 'rigging' where voting is concerned. Otherwise, we will never again see the way we elect our representatives and leaders work properly again, with credibility across the board.

Take another look at 'gerry-mandering' and you can begin to understand what harm it has done to our country.

Sorry, Wade, the Electoral College is very unfair. In two elections in the last 20 years the popular vote winner has lost. In Mississippi it really does not even pay to vote unless you're voting Republican for President. Think of the cynicism that will be caused if the popular vote winner continues to lose presidential elections. And look what we've gotten instead.

Hillary gets two million more votes than Trump. How long can the majority vote be disregarded before people totally become cynical about voting?George W. Bush gets less votes than Gore and involves us in a disastrous war that destroys young lives.The Electoral College must go.

The Constitution provides a way to get rid of the Electoral College. It is called a Constitutional Amendment. All it takes is 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the states and, POOF, the Electoral College will disappear.

Just go get it done! Whining about the Electoral College will do no good.